Green's 'police chief' bill: The Courier says 'too much.' I say 'not enough.'

*
The Courier News editorializes today against the bill proposed by Assemblyman Jerry Green that would remove the protections of tenure from police chiefs and make them contract employees, subject to performance reviews by a state panel.

The Courier thinks the bill goes too far. I think it doesn't go far enough.

The Courier opines that the legislation as proposed opens the door to political influence in the running of police departments which, in their opinion, ought to be above such meddling because of the importance of their mission: to serve and protect the people.

But that line of reasoning ignores the plain fact that the selection of chiefs of police is, and always has been, 'political' in Plainfield in the sense that the choice is made by an elected official, the Mayor, who is a political creature if nothing else. So, like Supreme Court justices at the national level, police chiefs are appointed for life on criteria held important by the appointing official -- in Plainfield's case, the Mayor in office at the time and whatever political agenda that person has in mind.

The Courier's editors also say that "Assemblyman Jerry Green wants to blow up the law so police Chief Edward Santiago can be fired."

Now a high school civics teacher might be forgiven if they wanted to send whoever wrote that sentence to summer school and hold them back in the same grade next year.

Writing laws to punish particular individuals -- known as 'Acts [or Bills] of Attainder' -- was an English tradtion favored both by the likes of Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth I, as well as the 'Roundhead' foes of King Charles II. It was also a tradition heartily detested by our Founding Fathers, some of whom had personal experience of same.

James Madison put it most succinctly, "Bills of attainder, ex-post -facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation." -- see The Federalist Papers - No. 44

Even in New Jersey, where astounding things happen on a regular basis, I doubt that a bill with an aim of removing Chief Santiago from his job would pass constitutional muster.

Assemblyman Green makes an apparently reasonable point about the tenured chiefs of police:

"...it is easy for even the most stalwart chief of police to become lax and complacent upon receiving tenure," said Green. "Making police chiefs contractual employees and creating a system to review their performance ensures that police departments and the public have effective leaders they can trust."

But can't the same issues of laxity and complacency be seen as a likelihood for other tenured positions in municipalities?

Why single out just chiefs of police? It seems to me that Assemblyman Green has not gone far enough. Is not what is really called for in the face of a threat of laxity and complacency at every turn a thorough- going review of all tenured positions at the local level -- fire chief, city clerk, tax collector, tax assessor, chief financial officer, as well as police chief?

Assemblyman Green has introduced an idea that deserves a full and frank discussion -- not only in the Legislature and in Plainfield, but in every community in the state.

-- Dan Damon

Keywords: Legislation, police chief
*